I disagree, meat should not be entirely eliminated from the human diet; reduced consumption from modified production methods I accept. Caged and feed lot production is undoubtably abhorrent but there is a strong argument that our ancestors derived the enlarged brain from the hunting way and the special fats in their meat diet. The world produces only about 1.7 billion tonnes per year of grains and sugars so unnecessarily feeding grain to animals is not sustainable, particularly while there are people starving. Also we may need to convert some agricultural land to production of energy but this will make only a small contribution to our current liguid energy supply as we presently consume about 3.6 billion tonnes of such fuels per annum. Such conversion will reduce the food available to eliminate starvation.
However there are significant areas of grasslands that are not suitable for grain, fruit or vegetable production so utilising this land for meat or wool production would seem sensible. Instead of 70kg of meat per person per year we could probably prosper health wise on 30kg or less than 100g per day.

One of the indications of a animal being under stress is the failure of the reproductive processes to function effectively. This is often manifested in the failure of the animal to conceive.

The humble chook, confined in a cage in a large airconditioned shed, seems to be under no such stress as she lays eggs like they are going out of fashion. Likewise the sow in the comfort of her pen is producing little piglets as fast as nature will allow.

If these animals were under undue stress, this would not be happening and we would not be reaping the benefits of the cheap eggs and bacon which we enjoy for breakfast.

Foyle, I'm with you on this. Changing wholly to a vegetarian or vegan diet will not address the current problems as presented by the author, nor will it significantly alter anything. And you are right, humans evolved precisely because of the meat in their diet. Evolution is still taking place. I'm not sure the writer has fully thought through the entire situation. It seems not. Of course, nobody likes animals being mistreated or being kept unnaturally confined, but production methods do not have to be like that, and indeed, legislation is being enacted to ensure they are more humanely treated.

Now let me see. My ewes and lambs happily graze the pastures.
If they didn't, the pastures would grow and grow, build up
a huge fuel load. In summer, on the first lightning strike,
the whole lot would go up in a ball of flames.That kind of
fire front would of course take any forests with it. So much
for doing anything except create a huge fire hazard!

My lambs aren't factory farmed, enjoy their lives. I don't
think they really care what happens to them after they die,
for I certainly don't. I guess the worms could recycle them,
as they do with us humans.

Perhaps the author should consider some tasty lamb in his
diet, its quite healthy too!

Farming can in fact do something in terms of carbon. We are
doing that, like using no till/deep till points. That means
that soil carbon levels are rocketing upwards, carbon sequestration
in action

I agree with Brian Sherman wholeheartedly. Mostly because although humans are naturally selfish and just can’t help ourselves- we just HAVE to exploit anything that moves, I oppose the slaughter of animals.

It is rather misleading to suggest that if animals were stressed they would not provide eggs in the case of chickens or provide young in the case of pigs. The author of such nonsense needs to research before making claims.

Animals including humans will breed even if their environment is extremely stressful. Take a look at people who are starving - they continue to breed like there’s no tomorrow. The physiological reaction in animals like chickens and pigs who are prevented from expressing natural behaviours is to transfer the body's effort at natural resistance to disease to coping with stresses and these manifests in severe weakness to prevent the animal from becoming a melting pot for disease.

To explain more take a look at http://www.birdflubook.com - a read which will enlighten those who are intent in refusing to see the bleeding obvious!

Pigs are notorious at harbouring diseases which affect humans and so the stresses these smart creatures suffer while caged in intensive farming prisons manifest as diseases which are easily passed on.

For those of you who just cannot see past yourselves and your stomach- who have a lack of compassion for those who quite frankly don’t want to die- please don’t eat those animals from intensive prison systems.

They are the cruellest of the cruellest of places.

Changing peoples' diet may seem a simple way to reduce our footprint on the planet, but in reality our diets are so much part of our culture, so deeply ingrained as a right, so that it is very hard to change peoples' mindset. Vegetarian/vegan food is scorned as pure tasteless vegetables, but the reality is totally different. It's just that it has not been commercialised enough. Animal fats are derived from animal products, but even health reason don't stop people basing their diets on it. Animal cruelty is even further down the list of reasons to change! Even ngos such as Greenpeace and Al Gore's LiveEarth will not acknowledge meat eating's impact on the environment. The horrific practices in factory farming are hidden away from public view to make sure we are not confronted with this reality and cruelty.

Agreed -- for once, with *everyone* posting here.

Growing crops to feed animals in cages is both wasteful and cruel. It is certainly not a less greenhouse-emission-intensive way to produce meat than grazing.

Obviously a sudden decrease in demand would not immediately translate to less livestock-raising activity and a consequent drop in methane. Changes in demand are only gradually followed by supply.

Mountains of low-grade factory-farmed meat don't do anyone any good.

But small amounts of high-quality, free-range meat, eggs & dairy products from healthy, well-cared-for animals are good for healthy humans and not particularly detrimental for the planet as a whole.

Voluntary veganism doesn't hurt anyone, but you can't compel it or sell it to everyone.

A timely argument. One further point worth mentioning is the matter of protein in a vegetarian diet.

Francis Moore Lappe (who is not a vegetarian), in her cookbook "Diet for a Small Planet", first explained in plain language the size of the ecological footprint of the meat industry. She also explained the concept of complementary proteins, which she applies in her recipes (some of which I still occasionally enjoy).

The idea of protein availability is that protein uptake can be optimised by making sure that all the necessary amino acids are available in a given meal. The same principle is successfully applied to feed supplements for domestic animals. The amount of available protein available in an optimised vegetarian meal is greater than that in the equivalent weight of meat.

My reservations about a diet heavily dependent on meat have dated from the early '70's, when I first read Diet for a Small Planet. Because meat is farther up the food chain, more land is required to produce the roughly 10 kilos of vegetation needed to produce about 1 kg of meat. Bioconcentration, hormones, antibiotics, antibiotic resistant bacteria, all are greater risks from meat than from vegetation, because animals are much more like us, physiologically. Pesticides and heavy metals may also be biologically concentrated in meats far more than in vegetable foods.

As if that weren't enough, because the agriculture methods used to produce the plant and animal protein are dependent on fossil fuels, meat requires more of these resources. I expect inflation due to increased fossil fuel costs will hit meat much harder than it does vegies.

And there's also the arguments about the suitability of European meat animals for Australian land. We'd arguably be better off eating kangaroo & wallaby rather than beef and pork.

One need only access photographs to learn of the amount of pus contained in the milk we drink. This is a result of man's zest for using the latest technology to extract blood from a stone. We are using methods to force cows to produce much more milk than nature intended.

The mastitis in cows becomes rampant which then must be cured by antibiotics to reduce the pus sufficiently to allow humans to drink this stuff. We, as members of the food chain then ingest the "cleaned up" results. Of course, when you fall ill from a disease, you may find that antibiotics don't work for you.

Many people I know eat cured and contaminated meats daily without question. These meats, particularly bacon, contain nitrosamines formed from nitrates (carcinogens.)

These are not the ancient meats consumed by our ancestors and we have become totally gluttonous in the consumption of flesh from other species.

Chimps, whose DNA sequence is 98.5% of humans, have a diet rich in plant matter where their meat intake is just 5% of the overall diet. Of course, they do not eat factory farmed cattle or sheep which contains all the hazardous contaminants of our "innovative" farming technologies.

Some months ago, the West newspaper exposed a farmer for ill-treating his pigs. The pigs were crammed in like sardines, forced to stand in their own excrement, on top of each other and reduced to cannibalism. The defence: "It's the economy stupid!"

Despite the innovative ag-technology, we have more animal diseases and more human dietary diseases. Despite the ongoing slaughter of feral animals to make room to grow more crops - not for the poor but to feed millions of factory-farmed animals, ferals have increased.

Pests and insects have increased therefore, hazardous chemicals have increased so has salination and soil erosion and farmers are increasingly stressed.

To continue expanding farming in this arid and drought prone country makes no sense.

We "evolved" flesh-eating mammals are indeed, a psychotic mob!

All this talk of meat is making me very hungry. I am going to have some steak (that's slaughtered cow), wrapped in bacon (executed pork), with a couple of eggs (robbed from a chook) and washed down with some delicious and refreshing milk (sucked from the cow without asking).

"Chimps, whose DNA sequence is 98.5% of humans, have a diet rich in plant matter where their meat intake is just 5% of the overall diet. Of course, they do not eat factory farmed cattle or sheep which contains all the hazardous contaminants of our "innovative" farming technologies."
They also live in trees and eat each other's fleas and lice. Relations dickie?

"In Australia, television shows such as Eco House Challenge and Carbon Cops have hit the screens and public protests with many thousands of people have hit the streets."
Come on, these shows are not that bad are they?

"Cut out beef from your diet and you'll save 1.45 tonnes of greenhouse gas a year."
Are you insane?

"if you were to switch from a normal sedan car to a hybrid car you would reduce your annual emissions by only just over 1 tonne"
What about the extra manufacturing emissions required to make hybrids.

Yet another article article with faux concern regarding the environment. In reality it is more concerned with intensive farming practices and is using the global warming "vehicle" as means to an end. They get worse by the day.

VK3AUU I hope your stomach rots from all those cheap egg and bacon breakfasts...You must be a walking cemetary!

All this talk about how we need meat for our brains to evolve, funny it seems even with all this meat our brains are still small, narrow minded, unenquiring and unwilling to be challenged.

"In reality it is more concerned with intensive farming practices and is using the global warming "vehicle" as means to an end."

Ah, a very wise observation, clearly the vegan Taliban are
alive and well!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/yachtings-comfort-zone/2007/07/30/1185647827068.html

Given that the general population is living it up big time,
if you change to lettuce leaves, it might make you feel good about
yourself, but make little difference to the big picture :(

As to animal welfare, people already have choices and are free
to buy free range eggs, free range pork, free range lamb etc.
It seems that about 20% do, the other 80% are more concerned with
their wallets.

Farming is certainly not all gloom and doom, as projected by
the vegans. I note that we have the first automated dairy,
where cows can choose to visit and be milked at their leisure,
spending the rest of their time grazing. Sounds like it works
great!

Choice magazine tells us that organic food is a waste of money,
as those "evil" chemicals are not there as is claimed. Dickie
is free to take her campaign up with Choice. I have found them
to be more reliable so far :)

Dickie might well be aiming to become 95+, but then Dickie,
chances are high that you'll be joining the other old folks
queing up at the old folks home reception, to check on what
their own name is. Give me a good old heart attack a bit before
that, thank you!

The real problem with our diets is not meat, people are living
longer then ever. The real problem is the American food
manufacturing industry. In many parts of Europe, where people
eat smaller portions, fresh produce etc, they live to a ripe
old age. What has changed is that food manufacturers have become
extremely good at marketing. They can fill their products up with
lard etc, which is dirt cheap, put it in nice little packets and
some people buy the stuff. As we have followed the American
trend, so obesity has risen in Australia.

Oh more from the vegans and veggies.

From my armchair understanding, the reason man evolved as he did was because of the protein he obtained from eating meat and fish.

I guess this proves what I have often thought, the intellectual competency of vegetarians is reflected through the deficiencies in their diet.

If we want to see evolution roll backward we can just study successive generations of vegetarians and vegans, that’s assuming they have the energy to procreate.

My vote is clearly and squarely against the desires of the celery stranglers and mung bean molesters to take us into that strange world of exclusive veggie diets.

Anna101 “For those of you who just cannot see past yourselves and your stomach- who have a lack of compassion for those who quite frankly don’t want to die- please don’t eat those animals from intensive prison systems.”

Nothing like good old fashioned hyperbole to up the blood pressure.

The intellectual competency of a chook is little different to that of a gold fish.

Assigning human emotional values to critters is one of the dumbest thing possible.

However, when I consider that half the population have IQ of 100 or less, I can understand how such a projection and transference of feeling can occur.

So as dear Marie Antoinette said “let them eat cake, while I munch on this nice cut of rib-eye.”

People fail to acknowledge that a large proportion of the world is grassland. Grass isn't particularly appetising, nor for that matter nutritious. Ruminant animals, by virtue of their digestive systems, enable the conversion of grass and other low energy plants to a useable foodsource.
Sure we can grow more wheat etc, however the flora and fauna that share the worlds pasture with domestic animals may not be so appreciative of more monocultures.

Maybe we need to eat primarily pork and chicken. Feed conversion ratios are much better and don't have the same digestive systems, so less methane emissions. Since 75% of animal methane emissions are associated with cattle, maybe sheep aren't that bad either.

Rice growing produces nearly the same methane emissions as animal production, perhaps we should stop doing that too.
Wetlands produce more methane, do we drain them?
Recent studies suggest the greatest man induced methane emissions are from storage dams.
In the US, a notable cattle producer, more methane is emitted from landfill than animal production, and more methane is emitted as a result of burning natural gas than from animals.

If methane is reponsible for 15% of global warming, and animals contribute around 20% of methane output, their overall contribution is 3%. I'd suggest there are bigger fish to fry (sorry vegans).

I suspect it is a bit more "natural" to eat a steak with regards to carbon emissions, than to sit in the glow of an incandesent bulb watching TV, drinking a coldie from the fridge with the AC going having completed the fossil fueled drive home

It appears that most accredited scientific forums on the web are concerned about the amount of atmospheric pollution released by livestock.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), in a November 06 report, advised that farm animals are responsible for 1/5 of the pollution blamed for global warming.

"The livestock sector poses a growing environmental threat. The GHG, methane has 23 more times the warming potential of CO2 and nitrous oxides has 296 times the warming potential of CO2.

"Livestock produce some 35 - 40% of anthropogenic methane and 65% of a/nitrous oxide.

"Urgent action is required to remedy this situation," said FAO's Henning Steinfield.

The USEPA advise that globally, the livestock sector is the largest source of man-made methane gas.

Apparently, New Zealand's 55 million farm animals produce 90% of the country's methane emissions.

Of equal concern for the planet and its already crowded human inhabitants , is the UN's prediction that meat production will double by 2050 to cater for the increase in consumption!

Truly it can be said, "Bullsh-t baffles brains"

We might be eating 'soylent green' crackers soon if we dont fix up someting, or is it stop something or start something? as if we arnt carefull there wont be any bee's to fertalise our almond trees etc, then us vegans might have to chew carcass's. Are lettuce pollinated by bees?

No joke...an Artist 'Evarasitti' recently served a banquet to guests of meatballs made with oil removed from his body by liposuction. Surf Google: food as art.
YUK imfeeling sick

"It appears that most accredited scientific forums on the web are concerned about the amount of atmospheric pollution released by livestock."

Sheesh, talk about specism lol. Now they get upset that some
species fart a bit, as they have for eons. Perhaps its time
that they looked at the real problem. We've gone from
a billion to 6.5 billion in hundred years. We still add 80
million people a year to the planet's population, yet many
women don't even have access to family planning.

We still have religious nuts like the Catholic Church, wanting
to ban all condoms, encouraging ever more billions of people.
Bugger em. Let my sheep fart in peace, as they enjoy their
lives... Wall to wall humans and concrete, with no space left
for other species, doesent sound like a pleasant place.

No doubt mother nature will sort it all out in the end, as
always happens. As usual, we humans will learn the hard way

Anna101

Thank you for that very interesting and informative website.

May I suggest VK3AUU calms his "bullsh-t" baffled brain and take time out to peruse the history of man's dominance and control over other species.

The last meal of Grauballe man, one of the well-preserved iron age bodies, found in a Denmark peat bog, consisted of a gruel compost of 66 species of plant seed, five of which were cultivated. It's been established that plant matter was an important part of the diet.

Archeological evidence and examination of these iron aged humans revealed that they were healthy and were taller than their future farmer descendants. Grauballe's height has been estimated at 6ft 6".

The domestication and slaughtering of sheep, goats and pigs by 8000 BC and cows by 6000 BC, saw the earliest epidemic diseases developed. Smallpox in cattle, TB in milk, flu in pigs and ducks.

Of course, due to the heinous and often filthy practices of intensive farming, new zoonotic diseases continue to wreak havoc on human and animal health and our economies.

Bird flues, BSE in cattle, ecoli diseases in cattle where new pathogens showed up in the common hamburger in the 80's.

Farmed chickens and turkeys often are so obese that the weight to their hips and legs results in these birds inability to ever stand up and they must simply wallow in their own excrement. Death comes as a merciful release to these poor critters!

The predicted increase of meat production doubling by 2050 will see the demise of the little fertile land we have left. Where to then? Mars?

However, it is likely technology will discover a solution to enable mitigation of methane released by farm animals but as history has revealed, at what price? It appears that for every technological new-age advance, to force incarcerated, intensively farmed animals to do our bidding, there has been an unpleasant reaction.

As a consequence, the chickens are coming home to roost but millions of humans still don't get it, do they?

"The last meal of Grauballe man, one of the well-preserved iron age bodies, found in a Denmark peat bog, consisted of a gruel compost of 66 species of plant seed, five of which were cultivated"

Sheesh, no wonder he died, poor nutrition :)

I remind you that our ancestors were hunters/gatherers. I've read
in some primatology literature, of female chimps swopping meat
for sex. The anthropology literature mentioned San women swopping
meat for sex. Clearly these females valued meat as a great way
to feed their offspring. Clearly these females reckoned that
picking berries was not enough to feed the offspring.

Eating meat is part of our genetic heritage, like it or not.
Reality does not go away, when you close your eyes and wish it
would.

i would sugggest all those people who are concerned about your carbon footprint, and the impact of you diet on it, to simply stop eating. anything. then you will die and we will bury you all in plastic bags to prevent any gasses, greenhouse or other,from escaping.and your noble actions will not only cure global warming, but global stupidity. i'm not sam kekovitch, but you know i make sense.

One wonders how to mobilise the white western middle classes to respect other species and the environment when their common perception of ecology is something to do with pandas and eating museli. Their continued zest to rape the land, increase soil degradation and water pollution is a result of the selfish interests of those seeking maximum profits and those humans, whose concerns are strictly altruistic, are seen as societal menaces.

The Bush Reich has now seen a bill passed, namely the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" where those objecting to unethical profiteering through the operations from animal bloodshed, are subjected to suppression, physical and legal intimidation or prosecution and scapegoating.

In this "fair" country, Mr Costello has also advised of imminent legislation where anyone speaking out against the unethical industries of animal bloodshed and/or environmental polluters will be prosecuted through the ACCC, should industries claim a loss of profits. It matters not that those who object to environmental and animal desecration are doing so verbally without any threats of physical violence. So much for free speech!

The Amazon forests irreplaceable biodiversity is now being obliterated by the timber and cattle industries to grow soy beans to feed China's pigs and Europe's chickens.

Another dead zone is the Texas Gulf now devoid of marine life, primarily due to agricultural run-off of animal wastes from petrochemical pesticides and fertilisers from fields growing feed for livestock.

It's noteworthy that the UK's environment minister, Ben Bradshaw, has advised consumers of the hidden costs of meat and dairy consumption, part of a broad plan to reduce the ecological footprint of agriculture in the British Isles and address the issue of global warming and climate change. Let's hope the Bush and Costello Reichs don't get wind of that!

The Animal Hannibal Lecters in our society, who gluttonise over meat, may like to know that all other species who are meat eaters have intestinal tracts 3 times their body lengths. This enables the rotting flesh to pass through quickly.

On the other hand, humans intestinal tracts are 10 - 12 times their body lengths. Should one elaborate further!

dickie,
the soyabean meal used to feed animals has first been processed to remove the oil. The meal is essentially a by product. You wouldn't advocate wasting that solar powered energy source, would you?

Animals fattened by being fed grain have spent most of their lives eating grass and converting that energy. The grain is a top up. From the animals perspective the move to feed rations must be more like eating at a quality retaurant, being waited on, eating as much as they desire, liquid refreshment on tap.

The price they pay is reasonably steep, but what did they have planned for the future anyway.

"The last meal of Grauballe man, one of the well-preserved iron age bodies, found in a Denmark peat bog, consisted of a gruel compost of 66 species of plant seed, five of which were cultivated

Sheesh, no wonder he died, poor nutrition :)"

Not to mention a miserable existence....seed gruel...uggh. I'm assuming dickie doesn't eat meat from his revulsive reactions to us omnivores, which doesn't explain his 5'2 stature and ogreish appearance. Eat meat and be beautiful!

"The anthropology literature mentioned San women swopping
meat for sex. "
Any ladies want some rib-eye?

"Common perception of ecology is something to do with pandas and eating museli."
Ooooh i love Pandas and muesli.

"On the other hand, humans intestinal tracts are 10 - 12 times their body lengths. Should one elaborate further!"
Please do...

For those who seek truth, in order to maintain good health, please google "The China Study Colin Campbell" to read excerpts from the manual The China Study.

This 20 year project on nutrition and disease, between the Cornell University US, the Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine reveals that the "science is clear. The results unmistakeable."

"People who ate the most animal based food got the most chronic diseases. People who ate plant based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. The results could not be ignored," said Dr Campbell, author of The China Study, who obtained his Masters and Ph.D in biochemistry and nutrition from the Cornell University.

"Any ladies want some rib-eye?"

Lol Alzo, they'll marry you, then send you out to work
to "bring home the bacon". To feed the offspring of course,
so its similar here. If they don't have a headache and
you have behaved, you might then get a bit, if lucky :)

Perhaps that San deal is a little fairer.

Dickie, given food production and pollution levels in China,
anyone who eats anything from China is quite brave. If you
knew how they keep and feed pigs, their main meat, anything
could happen.

Trying to compare those conditions with people in Autralia,
who largely eat pasture reared beef and lamb, all very differnt!
Around here, alot of the oldies who are in old peoples homes,
in their 90s plus, lived a large part of their lives eating
little but mutton and rabbits. My old neighbour even passed
the 100 mark. The other old fella down the road, was still
sitting in bed with a can of beer and a cigar, when he was
85.

I recently made a list of people I know who died prematurely
in these parts, in their 50s etc, from cancer or similar.
Many of them in fact led quite puritanical lives, some
deeply religious. The one thing they had in common when I
thought about it, they were just about all of them what
I call worrying, serious types. People who had trouble
bursting out laughing, people who took themselves and the
world terribly seriously. People with serious and stressed
looks on their faces for most of the time. Or of course a
few with serious genetic predispositions to some things.

The moral of the story is that you should hope you have
good genes and that you should sit back and relax and enjoy
a little more, or all that worrying might kill you :(

Meantime, I have to say, this lambroast is bloody delicious :)

Dr Campbell's China Study was prefaced by 27 years of research on fellow Americans. This research was funded by the National Institute for Health, American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research.

His works were reviewed twice for publication in the most prestigious scientific journals.

Campbell discovered that half of all Americans are on drugs for health problems and 100 million have high cholesterol. His findings were conclusive with his meat hypothesis. Evidence also showed up in tests done on rats fed a 20% diet of protein. All developed cancer. Those on a 5% meat diet did not.

His conclusions also found that consuming dairy foods increases the risk of prostate cancer in males.

Reducing the numbers of livestock and educating people on the ramifications of gorging on meat will not only lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases but also a mitigation of human diseases now rampant in most countries, a result of the West's addiction to meat as their staple diet and the developing countries following in their footsteps!

Unfortunately, we will always have amongst us, those who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence where their only interest is in themselves and their own comforts!

Dickie, perhaps your doctor should have visited Europe, where
people have eaten healthy balanced diets, with meat one
component. Clearly his data does not impress most other
doctors, for nearly all of them continue to eat meat!

America is well known for supersizing everything and
covering it in lard. Processed food again is loaded with
lard. No wonder they have health problems! As good
nutritionists will tell you, its all about a balanced
diet, eating as much unprocessed food as possible, not
American factory food.

But of course your agenda has been stated enough times.
Its all about animal liberation, you might as well just
admit it. Trying to latch on to the health story to
justify the animal lib agenda, just isn't working!

dickie,
re: dairy and prostate cancer http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1701909.htm
It would appear no such link exists in Australia.

When you say a 20% protein diet, do you mean it's all animal sourced protein? Since animal protein levels are around that 20% level, this suggests the rats could have been eating only meat. Hardly a balanced diet.

Dickie ” those who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence where their only interest is in themselves and their own comforts!”

Ah, the ills of capitalism, why all those selfish people who follow their own path to self actualization rather than submit to the dictates of supposed “scientific correctness” (“supposed” being based on the seemingly unending number of scientific studies which contradict one another).

It is like this dickie, you can preach all you want but we are all free to choose and decide for ourselves.

In my world, what matters is to listen to the scientific evidence and then decide for myself.

Some call that selfishness, I call it self assertion.

I have personally observed that those who follow the rules and live a vegan lifestyle don’t live any longer, to them it just seems longer.

If all I had to look forward to was a subsistence existence, living on boiled roots and thatching my own clothes, I think I would rather be dead.

I look forward to many things, some of which you and the scientists may approve, some things disapprove and all of which any "approval" is completely redundant to.

Now bring on the scantily clad, big busted serving girls, I need my pillows pumped and grapes peeled, (what is life without comforts?)

ColRouge

Membership is free to the institute for "Those who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence and think only of their own comforts." You certainly qualify!

Your comprehension of the written word is poor as is that of your other buddies on this post who have vested interests in the farming industry.

At no time have I recommended readers to convert to vegans. Nor am I a vegan.

What I have recommended is a reduction in consumption of meat and dairy products, a reduction in livestock numbers and an educational programme to alert citizens of the ramifications to the environment and human health from gorging on animal flesh.

Factory farmed animals are now seriously contaminated by various veterinary drugs and unethical and cruel agricultural practices where the motives of many growers are strictly fiscal without regard for the health of the animal, consumers or the environment.

Though I am reluctant to speak on a personal basis, I would hazard a guess that I have the potential to be the oldest poster on this forum. I am perfectly healthy and consume no more than 150 grams of meat over a week.

Many of my friends are now deceased - ranging from their 40's onwards. Those friends of mine who are now suffering from prostate cancers (3) are all large meat eaters who continue to disregard the long-term effects of an imprudent diet where they view the consumption of a meal without meat as unthinkable. Clearly, they remain toxic and depressed as I watch on in silence.

I remind you that this forum is for debate, not for preachers as you suggest. Should you continue to insist that I am preaching then I must accuse you of similar tactics where your hedonistic motives lack any altruistic concerns for the environment, your fellow man or other species!

As for the "ills of capitalism" I advise that most of my family would be viewed as capitalists. Some are and have been Liberal politicians. They do not lead a life of "subsistence." They too are free to choose their own destinies. What is your point?

"What I have recommended is a reduction in consumption of meat"

Well Dickie, there is good news and there is bad news. The
good news for you is that the consumption of meat per capita,
in places like the US, might well decrease in the future.

Food, in particular meat, has been far too cheap in the past,
based on give away US corn prices of 80US$ a tonne. Thats all
changing now, as grain is so cheap in relative terms, that it
makes better sense to convert it into ethanol and biodiesel,
then for cattle feed.

So the prediction is that grain prices will rise, linked to
energy prices. That means more expensive meat, so less
consumption per capita. So your health fears will be lessened.

The bad news for you is that ever more grain will be produced to
satisfy energy needs, as the price of oil rises.

At your age, not much you can do about it, so best you just have
a cup of tea and a lie down for a bit :)

"Americans are well known for supersizing everything and covering it in lard. No wonder they have health problems."

Errrr.....ahhh, he... hem, Yabby.

The definition of lard:

"The rendered fat of a hog."

I rest my case!

Speaking of comprehension dickie, it was most apparent that yabby meant lard as relating to animal fat, though whether or not he knew it was specific to pig fat ( I din't until you pointed it out) doesn't seem earth shattering news.

Clinical studies reveal that animal fat is a major contributer to disease. Not necessarily the lean meat. Unfortunately "meat" studies include pies, which may be only 25% meat, and sausages where they "must be at least 50% meat and where fat must not make up more than 50% of the meat content" (food standards Aust). ie 25% meat.
They also include processed and fermented meats that really fall short of what I'd call meat.
Often it's not the meat but the way it's cooked- burnt bits, as with toast, are known to contain carcinogens. These factors skew results.

A little further investigation of the prostate cancer-milk study revealed that the conclusions were drawn on milk drinkers consuming 6 cups of milk per day, or about 1.5litres/day. Normal consumption(3) didn't have measurable effect.

Of course french fries are healthy, being vegetarian and all, and what about the macular degeneration linked to vegetable oils? All in all moderation is best.

"I rest my case!"

Ok so rest it, perhaps time for that cup of tea and a lie down
after all :)

The thing is, you missed the point.

Nutritionists will tell you that a healthy diet is one of
moderation and variety. That includes lean red meat.

What the Americans do has little to do with that. If
you go to the US, especially the deep South, you'll find that
food is generally greasy, as everything has been deep fried in
lard or tallow. Everything is supersized. Some West Australian
farmers have just come back from a US feedlot tour. According
to them, in Texas, if a steak does not completely cover the
plate, its not considered a real steak.

US food manufacturers have become specialists at grinding
things up, adding extra salt and sugar, pressing out cute little
shapes etc, then advertising the hell out of them to market them.

One of my staff once came to work with these boxes of biscuits,
which she fed to her kids. I got her to read the label.
24% fat! Not a scrap of meat in there either, just value adding
with no consideration for the consumer. Too many are mugs, thats
the problem.

Lean red meat, as part of a healthy, balanced diet, is still a
good thing. Lard is not lean red meat.

Yabby,

re:
"What the Americans do has little to do with that. If
you go to the US, especially the deep South, you'll find that
food is generally greasy, as everything has been deep fried in
lard or tallow. Everything is supersized. Some West Australian
farmers have just come back from a US feedlot tour. According
to them, in Texas, if a steak does not completely cover the
plate, its not considered a real steak."

I expect if you went to the southern US, you might find many exceptions to your hearsay opinions. As for feedlot tour, what might you expect to get served up? Crawdads?

Dickie “Your comprehension of the written word is poor as is that of your other buddies on this post who have vested interests in the farming industry.”

I have no problem with the written word, exercising a general vocabulary which would greatly exceed yours, I dare say.

However, could you explain this “vested interest in the farming industry” which you claim I have? I have no commercial of professional interest in farming. I do enjoy a steak and the produce of our farmers bounty. I moved from Europe partly because the Australian economy straddled a wider base than UK.

RE “What I have recommended is a reduction in consumption of meat and dairy products,”

What I recommend is individuals make up their own minds and don’t bother with the fads and fancies of those who seek power to direct us from their lofty pinnacles.

Re “Should you continue to insist that I am preaching then I must accuse you of similar tactics where your hedonistic motives lack any altruistic concerns for the environment, your fellow man or other species!”

Spoken by a real Pontiff in the making.

Btw, “altruism”, like compassion and philanthropy (see what I mean about vocabulary), can only ever be expressed by individual people following their own heart and is not something which they can be forced to support, that is the first great lie of socialism, “community altruism”.

Col Rouge

I did not claim you had a vested interest in the farming industry - nor do I care.

What I did say was that your buddies on this post had a vested interest in the farming industry.

Get it? Comprehend?

"if you went to the southern US, you might find many exceptions to your hearsay opinions."

Vivor, of course there are exceptions. Its like saying that men
are taller then women. In general thats true, but there are exceptions.

I in fact did go to southern US and was rather shocked lol.
Like a different country, compared to the NE. I've never seen
so many obese people in my life, many battling to walk. When
I tried to eat breakfast, one joint after the other served nothing
but greasy food. The French Bakery saved me :) No wonder people
are so obese! Yes there are some good restaurants too, but
they are the exception, not the rule in the South.

Its not hard to figure out why so many USanians, particularly
in the South, have a problem. Greasy food, rubbish food, huge
portions, all add up. In Europe the average meat portion is
around 150g. Diets are balanced. Thats the issue here.

In other words, its not meat per se thats the problem, its lard,
deep fried food, portion sizes etc, which make America the most
obese nation on earth. Sadly they have exported some of this
rubbish to Australia and sucked in some of our consumers.

On a federal government website: healthinsite.gov.au/topics/obesity, statistics reveal that nearly 60% of all Australians are now overweight or obese. Obesity tripled between 1985 - 1995.

This dilemma is costing the government $1.5 billion dollars a year with the inherent health problems which are now endemic in Australia.

Australia has 68,505 beef cattle properties with a national cattle herd of 24,725,000 and Australians eat 37kg per person each year. Of course, that doesn't include the chickens,lamb, pigs, goats, processed and smoked "plastic" meats etc.

Little wonder Brian Sherman has concerns over the carbon footprint of meat in Australia when the cattle alone, outnumber humans!

Yabby, I trust you don't visit Chinese restaurants in Australia. They tradionally use lard in their cooking!

Dickie “Australia has 68,505 beef cattle properties with a national cattle herd of 24,725,000 and Australians eat 37kg per person each year. Of course, that doesn't include the chickens,lamb, pigs, goats, processed and smoked "plastic" meats etc.”

One of the things with the agrarian / pasturalist aspects of our economy, you do need a large herd to manage, if you expect to have sufficient to support an export industry.

Now we come to the reality of this carbon footprint rubbish. It is a fraud,

Enough theoretical assumptions to choke a cow, to say nothing of a chook.

Economic realities will minimise the implications of carbon footprints by ranking their relevance in priority behind (or well down the list) of the wealth creation processes undertaken by individuals.

Dickie can be as petulant as he wants but he is writing like someone who already knows he has lost the debate by falling back on what the bunkum scientific merchants have to say about their own (less than empirical) studies of the irrelevant.

To bring up an earlier point “Membership is free to the institute…”

I have several institutional memberships, all of which cost me money. Through my involvement with one institute, I am sponsoring the formalisation of a process to measure and analyse carbon production and all the rest of the bunkum not because I think that there is added value from such analysis but because there are enough dullards around who will be game to pay for access to such a process.

It is all about supply and demand, when people like dickie jump up and down, salivating and hysterical about carbon this or carbon that, people like me see the opportunity and line them up like ducks for plucking.

It is like having a bet each way really, a personal win-win, either I am right because the realities transpire to prove me right or I will make a bucket of money from being wrong.

"60% of all Australians are now overweight or obese. Obesity tripled between 1985 - 1995."

Australians have always been large meat eaters, so start to ask
yourself what has changed. In the 70s, you'd have to get off
your arse to operate the tv, few remote controls then. So less
exercise.

Then we have the change of diet. The proliferation of American
fast food joints, using largely lard to superssize that double
burger with extra fries etc. More processed foods, cheaper food
so larger portions.

Back in the 70s, people ate less processed food, less fast
food. So you are barking up the wrong tree about lean meat.

"At no time have I recommended readers to convert to vegans. Nor am I a vegan."

Well dickie maybe you should reconsider, it could be harming your sex life.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/archives/2007/08/pork.html

What a fatuous article, and so many blinkered posters! But one wily crustacean is a beacon of reason among them.
Over about 80,000 generations, our ancestors evolved on a diet of roughly one third grain, one third fruit, and one third meat. They were adaptable; to long periods of differing diets and proportions; to feasts and famines.
About 400 generations back, to the delight of mice and rats, they started growing and storing grain. They tended to live longer, though often more miserably, and produce more descendants as grain growing and its storage became standard.
But the basic human digestive inheritance had not, and has not yet, had time to evolve to match the new regime.
Lean free-range meat, obtained from clobbering some feckless beast which had been grinding down its tooth-enamel on silica-rich grass stems, is still what our choppers and the fermentation-tank of our gut expects in reasonable proportions. Yes, minor variations have developed. Societies which did not develope a milk-drinking culture have digestions which do not take kindly to the milk jug subsequent to infant-weaning.
And location and lifestyles must be expected to impinge upon appropriate diet: a pig-out on whale-blubber would be kosher for an Innuit freezing his freckle while stalking a seal, but would not be much good if he were translocated to Florida for a life with a tinny-in-hand while watching a television re-run of evangelical gospel. Whatever the location and circumstance, a wide range of fresh food appropriate to them is the optimum – combined with sufficient physical activity to enhance metabolism.
I am in agreement with Yabby. It is a mistake to push the population out onto the extreme of one limb of human diet. Doing so might – unlikely, but might – enable us to cram a few more hundred million people onto the planet. But, when that slack is taken up by the ever-exapanding population, what then – confine our eating to the cyanide-laced Cassava perhaps, as some societies already are forced to do, because that crop has less need for water and nutrients than others? Perhaps enable 15 billion?

Perhaps you could give us your views on the topic at hand Colinsett.

That is: "Factoring meat into our carbon footprint."

You will need to take into account the following:

Livestock in Australia up to 2005: 129 million

Total meat and egg birds up to '05: 76 million

The Canadian Inuit is now rethinking their tradional diet of "blubber meat" and other marine life. You see the marine life is heavily contaminated with pesticides including dioxins - you know that bioaccumulative, transboundary stuff farmers spray on their crops, contaminating all living species and eco-systems on the planet? The Canadian Inuits now suffer a high rate of cancers.

A reduction in livestock will increase global population??

Yep - we certainly have some "blinkered posters" on OLO.

Dickie, “Factoring meat into our carbon footprint” – yes it is the topic, the purpose of which is questionable.

If we are to limit our diet to vegetables in order to lessen our carbon footprint, is that to enable business as usual to proceed for a bit longer, to when our total carbon footprint returns to, and then exceeds, the present size?

If the purpose is not so blinkered - should a vegetarian diet be as environmentally beneficial as portrayed - then it can’t stand alone. It needs to be accompanied by advocacy for women throughout the world to have access to education and empowerment to limit their fertility according to their wishes. As things stand, about 80 million extra mouths need feeding every year – contributing considerably to the total carbon footprint.

Yes, farmers do spray their crops with stuff which is neither good, nor always lawful. They also, in Australia’s case, grow their vegetation at the expense of living entities which make up more than 20% of the earths biological mass: fungi. A abiodiversity essential to our existence. Much of this is incorporated into the top soil layers. Huge quantities of this have been exported towards New Zealand by air and water. Most of it done in the process of clearing paddocks to produce grain and other vegetable matter. Yes, most of us would be more healthy if less of this grain was sent to hen/pig/cattle concentration camps. But vegetarianism is not all that pure.

colinsett

The feed grain required per head, per annum, for the following factory farmed animals:

Chickens..............39 kgs per head/per annum

Pigs...................1699 kgs per head

Dairy cows..........1500 kgs per head

Cattle.................1547 kgs per head

Sheep....................22 kgs per head

Grazing/ruminants......20 kgs per head

Total farmed animals = 205 million

NB: Does not include ducks and turkeys.

That must be an awful lot of hectares being desecrated to feed our livestock just to fatten them up for slaughter, Colinsett.

No worries about the starving millions of humans who could be feasting on much of that grain by reducing livestock numbers and thereby reducing the carbon footprint (and methane emissions) in this arid land.

"The feed grain required per head, per annum"

"That must be an awful lot of hectares being desecrated to feed our livestock"

Any ideas on how much grain per head per annum it would take to sustain a human being comfortably?

dickie "That must be an awful lot of hectares being desecrated to feed our livestock just to fatten them up for slaughter,"

at the risk of sounding “religious” - Man shall not live by bread alone!

Alzo asks about “sustainability” and “comfort”

A diet of grain might be "sustainable" but not very "comfortable" - assuming we take boredom as a equating to a discomforting outcome.

I think individuals are best at deciding how much meat they are prepared to buy and how they can best balance their dietary needs (although the obese seem to be doing a poor job at it).

The idea that some central authority decides we will all eat grain to reduce carbon emissions or some other wonky theory is akin to treating us like critters in Animal Farm. Fortunately the "real world" model, which George Orwell used when he wrote that book was destroyed around 15 - 20 years ago.

I have always thought we were put on earth to live, not to merely exist.

“Living” is about making ones own decisions and suffering the consequences, regardless that the outcomes may be sub-optimal.

I have found the consequences of my own decisions have always been “less sub-optimal” than when some faceless bureaucrat tried to make them for me.

As for “No worries about the starving millions of humans”

most of those starving millions are victims of the sort of government who takes it upon itself to decide who will eat what. The despots and dictators who seem to be the scourge of the third world.

I think there is a good argument for re-colonialisation of most of the countries who cannot feed their populations.

Zimbabwe representing a good case study, where the despot, Mugabe raped a viable economy and destroyed the means of food production with his own demented socialist theories

"No worries about the starving millions of humans who could be feasting on much of that grain"

Dickie, you can keep sending more boatloads of food to Africa,
unless you also send some family planning, which the Catholic
Church will fight against, all you'll get is more starving
millions, so its not going to solve anything, just increase
the problem. If every Australian were wiped out tomorrow,
it would take the world just 90 days of breeding to replace
us.

There is in fact plenty of grain for the starving millions.
Somebody needs to buy it for them, farmers can't be expected
to give it away.

But as it happens, the starving millions or livestock won't
be where ever increasing volumes of grain will be going.
It will be for transport, so that people like you have
wheels to use. If you think that people will give up their
cars, for the benefit of the starving millions, I'd say that
you were kidding yourself. But then that is highly possible,
given your postings :)

It seems that the vast majority of opinions here have missed the alternative thrust of Brian Sherman's article - the immense cruelty involved in satisfying the human bloodlust. It is all to easy to pass those massive metal sheds on country (and other) roads, and not think about the torment within them. Pigs, known to be as intelligent as dogs, scream their frustration but have no physical outlet for their distress. Likewise chickens. We should never forget that these are living, sentient creatures, and if people MUST eat them, surely it is not too much to ask that they may have some sort of fundamental enrichment to their wretched lives. The human species is capable of the most horrific cruelty, all in the name of the profit motive. If by some minor dietary modifications we become healthier (I certainly do not want rotting animal flesh in my body), and we even slightly diminish the harm we are doing to this planet, at least some of these hapless animals will not be born for no better purpose than to suffer terribly and die at our brutal hands.

Alzo.

Roughly one pound of grain per day will keep the average homo sapiens sufficiently fed to survive comfortably. A cow needs about 30 times as much.

Nobody seems to have mentioned goats, even though there is more goat meat eaten than any other meat in the world. Goats have the ability to survive on all manner of plants which many other species find quite unpalatable. Apart from goats, the Australian outback also supports quite large populations of donkeys and camels which no one seems to have yet turned into food for human consumption.

David

VK3AUU

Your suggestions of farming feral animals may have merit, however, this would only exacerbate the degradation of our biodiversity and increase the carbon footprint of factory farmed animals.

Increasing the farmed numbers of cloven-hoofed animals is most imprudent when one considers the damage to land masses and the recurring diseases these animals are now suffering. Countries are continually banning imports of meat and destroying livestock due to foot and mouth disease etc and meat growers are now having one hell of a time in preventing all the other diseases prevalent in farmed animals.

I don't believe we can continue to force-feed animals toxic chemicals and incarcerate them in confined spaces for much longer.

Mother Nature and the animals are rebelling. Bird flu, SARS, TB, Anthrax, Mad Cows Disease, Rabies, Ebola, West Nile Virus, Avian flu etc have all originated in animals. HIV/Aids is also thought to have originated in the monkey. Human infections are on the increase!

The routine feed of antibiotic growth promoters is assisting in breeding anti-resistant microbes. Pathogens in animal and bird faeces disseminated through the air is passed on to humans and other animals.

Already the animal grazing industry occupy 58% of Australia's land mass. How much more land grab will be required with the increase in population?

Australia should be leading the world in educating its people on the benefits of limiting meat consumption, thereby freeing up additional land for plant foods.

However, as in climate change matters, the status quo in inhumane factory farming will continue and we will as usual, attempt to find solutions only when conditions become a matter of serious urgency!